|
Retarded Pimp posted:I'm not really sure you can use that battle as a metric, since the export T-72 was an entirely different beast than the models the Soviets used. Warbadger will probably be here soon to elaborate, but the T-72s the Iraqis had weren't that old. They didn't have some of the top of the line stuff the T-72Bs had, but they were still pretty good examples of the T-72M and such you'd see in Eastern Europe well into the 80s. The biggest problem was they were going up against an opponent with like 40 years preparation for a PACT style fighting force, and having to fight them with weapons/ammo/technology the West had already mostly superseded. For example, the ammo types available to the Iraqis has almost no hope against an M1A1(HA), which were moved directly from line units in Germany to participate, while the M829A1 was incredible at killing non-ERA equipped T-64/72/80s from essentially as far as they could shoot. This doesn't include the disparity in thermals/FCS, which even the Russian T-72Bs lacked in the same capacity (AFAIK they buy them Thales now for the 72B3/90s). Mazz fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Mar 29, 2016 |
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 09:16 |
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Leo Polk getting sniped by a 3" gun This is my favorite Civil War anecdote.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Also, not everyone who provided information was someone qualified to talk about it. Accounts of the supposed invincibility of Panthers and Tigers and the shittiness of Shermans came from people who didn't actually fight in them, like infantry. Death Traps, if I remember, was predominately written and/or sourced from a mechanic who took the fact that he saw a lot of damaged and destroyed Shermans as evidence that they must have been awful (much like how a field hospital is evidence that soldiers are awful at fighting because the only soldiers you see are wounded ones!). Even worse. He was a liaison officer for a repair unit, and in his book, showed he knew nothing about the tanks nor how they worked. Here's a start on what's wrong with his book: http://tankandafvnews.com/2015/01/29/debunking-deathtraps-part-1/
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
MrMojok posted:
But the war of Jenkins ear didn't have any airplanes?????
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
So, what was the best time during the Cold War for the USSR to Fulda Gap and crush capitalism under the tracks of endless tank columns? I'm reading the oft-posted CIA report and at least by the numbers presented there, late 70's/early 80's look like something that would have ended in Europe-wide communist state if nukes didn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 10:07
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Warbadger will probably be here soon to elaborate, but the T-72s the Iraqis had weren't that old. They didn't have some of the top of the line stuff the T-72Bs had, but they were still pretty good examples of the T-72M and such you'd see in Eastern Europe well into the 80s. Saddam's T-72M1s came in parts and the fewer original Czech parts he could get, the more he came up with his own, hence the indigenous Iraqi variants "Saddam" and "Asad Babil". Some of them were standard T-72M1s, some were hackjobs of the export model T-72 as the arms embargo became more of a problem and Iraq had to produce more and more of the tank.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 10:24
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Leo Polk getting sniped by a 3" gun This is now my favourite over "They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance" when it comes to the Civil War.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 10:53
|
|
|
Klaus88 posted:All of this depends on whether or not you pulled your stats from a tank game. Ospreys and wikipedia, since they're all I have at uni. Wikipedia at least cited Zaloga, so I have some hope the numbers aren't complete poo poo. Also it's not the M1s we discussed, he says the premise that the T-72 is equivalent to the M60 is laughable. Which seems really weird to me because even a conservative estimate of it's fighting capability, as far as I know, would give very nice odds to the T-72, and I wasn't aware that the T-72 had anything like a really horrific reliability or visibility problem that would give clear advantage to an otherwise less potent tank. spectralent fucked around with this message at 12:12 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 12:09
|
|
|
MrMojok posted:Yes, there have been. And I understand the need for OPSEC. But the thread has always struck me as funny because you've got a lot of what I assume are Air Force guys talking, using acronyms that I have to keep a separate Google tab open just to translate, at least a half-dozen times per page, with people constantly saying stuff like OPSEC, or I don't know but if I did know I couldn't say. It's a Cold War thread, you goober.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 12:54
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:This is my favorite Civil War anecdote. Meade thought he was getting arrested when a staff officer woke him up to let him know he was receiving command of the Army of the Potomac. (Also not much of a war anecdote but Meade's statue in DC is the best)
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 13:16
|
|
|
lenoon posted:But the war of Jenkins ear didn't have any airplanes????? If we get to talking about the War Of Jenkins Ear, I will personally go and talk to my floppy booted War Of Jenkins Ear expert bros at Fort Mose, who make up a troop of southern black reenactors based there. And take tons of pics. They are rad dudes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
The Battle of Koljonvirta (1808) saw the Russian commander, count Dolgoruki sniped with a cannonball. After a Russian assault across a bridge had been repulsed he rode to rally them for an another attempt and was, according to some sources, blown into two pieces by a cannonball in full view of his troops, who then fled. A local band made a metal song about the battle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2ODVSJl_Bw
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
JcDent posted:So, what was the best time during the Cold War for the USSR to Fulda Gap and crush capitalism under the tracks of endless tank columns? I'm reading the oft-posted CIA report and at least by the numbers presented there, late 70's/early 80's look like something that would have ended in Europe-wide communist state if nukes didn't exist. Probably the fall of 1945. The US was basically out of nukes and probably couldn't get a bomber to Moscow even if they had a spare. Meanwhile the late war red army was loving fearsome
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
It would have been a pretty big shitshow, though. As I recall, the Red Army was running towards the end of its manpower/replacement leash in summer '45.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
I'd probably put my money on the US in a theoretical '45/'46 war if only due to our industrial advantage, but it would've been a massive shitshow with little but lightly glowing rubble to show for it by the end.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
Azran posted:Hello thread, I need your best and funniest milhist anecdotes. Like the one about the US losing the T95 or the one about the Dutch submarine sinking the German sub on Australian waters or whatever it was. I find daily uses for the phrase, "Hell, by compass." There's also, "The World Wonders," but it's just one facet of the ultimate Cool War Story, the Battle off Samar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
JcDent posted:So, what was the best time during the Cold War for the USSR to Fulda Gap and crush capitalism under the tracks of endless tank columns? I'm reading the oft-posted CIA report and at least by the numbers presented there, late 70's/early 80's look like something that would have ended in Europe-wide communist state if nukes didn't exist. I'd agree with this....any time from the end of Vietnam until ~1985 or so. The US military was in really bad shape; a lot of the equipment was obsolete, the military's general competence was pretty horrible. On the plus side some of the NATO partners (Germany in particular) were in fairly good shape during the same period.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Probably the fall of 1945. The US was basically out of nukes and probably couldn't get a bomber to Moscow even if they had a spare. Meanwhile the late war red army was loving fearsome I might prefer the early 50s. At this point Europe's had some time to recover and also half of it is now in the Soviet sphere of influence, plus NATO has most of its best troops already tied up in Korea fighting the Chinese, plus Germany (both sides) is still completely disarmed. (Of course, this hypothetical war goes nuclear in about two seconds flat, but that's likely anywhere in the Cold War, really)
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
Azran posted:Hello thread, I need your best and funniest milhist anecdotes. Like the one about the US losing the T95 or the one about the Dutch submarine sinking the German sub on Australian waters or whatever it was. Battle of May Island? See also British K class, a steam powered submarine with a max diving depth much less than its length
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Meade thought he was getting arrested when a staff officer woke him up to let him know he was receiving command of the Army of the Potomac. My two favorites are: John Mosby quote:Mosby is famous for carrying out a daring raid far inside Union lines at the Fairfax County courthouse in March 1863, where his men captured three Union officers, including Brig. Gen. Edwin H. Stoughton. Mosby wrote in his memoirs that he found Stoughton in bed and roused him with a "spank on his bare back." Upon being so rudely awakened the general indignantly asked what this meant. Mosby quickly asked if he had ever heard of "Mosby". The general replied, "Yes, have you caught him?" "I am Mosby," the Confederate ranger said. And Grant at Shiloh quote:Sometime after midnight, Sherman encountered Grant standing under a tree, sheltering himself from the pouring rain and smoking one of his cigars, while considering his losses and planning for the next day. Sherman remarked, "Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?" Grant looked up. "Yes," he replied, followed by a puff. "Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow, though."
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:And Grant at Shiloh They indeed licked 'em the next day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
Today I learned being the secretary for the Duke Of Welllington loving sucked. And this is AFTER the Napoleonic Wars.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:My two favorites are: John Mosby lmao quote:U.S. President Lincoln, on hearing of the capture, said that "he did not so much mind the loss of a brigadier general, for he could make another in five minutes; 'but those horses cost $125 apiece!'"[6]
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
OK, on personal accounts of historical events and a lot of the problems associated with them. Throughout this I'm just going to refer to the issues of survivor accounts in the Holocaust. It's very illustrative of a lot of the general issues with personal testimony and covers a lot of the various edge cases. Also, the person who I learned most of this from was a Holocaust scholar, so that's the framework that I had to initially deal with it in. The first issue you will find is outright lying or fabrication. You would think this could be easily controlled for, but it's not always as obvious as someone with a clear motive for hiding the truth. Someone talking about what they did as a camp guard at Auschwitz, for example, is obvious very suspect. Someone who was an infantryman on the Eastern Front in 1942 is a middle case. We probably accept a lot of what he says about combat, but you will also have the suspicion that he is leaving out some specific details. What happened to those Russian POWs he escorted to the rear? His unit drove through a traditionally jewish village, what happened there? etc. The problem is that even when you really want to trust every word you can't be sure that they aren't providing a version of events that shows them in a better light. This is a really prickly issue when dealing with Holocaust survivors. All those people survived horrible events with the odds very stacked against them, and it's not hard to believe that many of them did things they aren't proud of. Maybe the person stole food from a sick friend in the camp. Maybe a woman sold her body to the camp Kapos to get protection from the most dangerous work details. When people give interviews to historians they're almost never giving anonymous testimony, they are telling stories that they can safely assume their grandkids will be able to access. As an interesting aside, this probably also helps to explain why some subjects that were previously taboo are being talked about more and more openly. Sexual violence in general and violence between holocaust victims specifically are two big areas that people just didn't talk about for decades after. In the immediate aftermath you had some early reports, and just now you're starting to see people talk more openly about it. My gut says that this has to do with the remaining survivors being very old and wanting to get things off their chests before they die. The politics of it also don't help matters. No one wants to talk about inter-victim violence. It complicates the picture in ways that a lot of people are uncomfortable with, to the point that a lot of scholars just won't touch the subject. OK, let's assume that everyone we're talking to is a perfectly virtuous individual with no interest in either lying or disclosing anything but the full, complete truth. Now we get into the problems of human memory. Put simply, human memory is loving garbage. The first issue is the fact that we can't always trust our senses. People are mistaken at the time and think they saw something they didn't - or see something indistinctly and have their expectations fill in the gaps - but in their memory it is a 100% certainty. This is a huge and well documented issue in criminal justice and you don't have to search far to find people put in jail for heinous crimes based on eye witness testimony and later exonerated by incontrovertible evidence (DNA, video of them somewhere else, etc). Not only are we prone to being mistaken, but over time even our perfectly captured and understood memories fade and change. How well do you remember the most memorable day of your life? I've got wonderful memories of the day I got married, but thinking about it now it's more little vignettes than an archival record. Looking at photos of the day I will see all sorts of little details that I hadn't remembered until then. - keep that in mind, because it will be important later. What happens as we move further from the event is that we begin to recount a more and more consistent version of the events. We aren't relating so much what really happened as the narrative that our mind has created. The problem with this is that the narrative is based as much on what has happened later in our life as it is on what was going on that day. Going back to my wedding example, my brother in law was there with his girlfriend and my best man was there with his. In retrospect both of these are important details because both couples ended up getting married. The presence of these future married couples takes on an importance that it never had at the time. If they had broken up after the wedding it wouldn't be noteworthy at all. Also, I am happily married. If the marriage had been a train wreck and ended two years later in divorce chances are that my recollection would include all sorts of hosed up details that hinted at the disaster to come. Our memories of the past are a construction based both on events as we perceived them and our later experiences that provided meaning to them. Related to this is the fact that relating our memories can very quickly become a performance. Again, think back on a major event in your life, or that one funny story you always tell at the bar. Chances are you have a pretty standard version that you relate. If you recorded yourself telling it five different times you would notice some very similar narrative structure, even down to the way that you describe individual vignettes. Tell the same story ten times and you will develop a script. Is that script exactly what happened? Probably not. Now we have a problem that crops up frequently in historical events, namely traumatic memory. I'm not a psychologist so I can't go too in depth on this, but it's pretty well understood that traumatic events gently caress with the mind in some really interesting/awful ways and that can also influence memory. It's very varied as well. On the one hand you have the repression of traumatic memories, and on the other you have distortions of perception that can alter what the person believed happened. This is particularly important when you're talking about the passage of time and ordering specific events. Did the person next to you on the train get shot in the head when you arrived at the camp, or when the train stopped to get more coal half way through? Was it the SS officer who had been barking orders and loomed large as a threatening figure who did it, or that Ukrainian volunteer guard. Was it to make a specific point or punish a specific transgression, or was it an act of random violence? The event is a split second of intense violence mired in a long, traumatic ordeal and the brain just freaks out a bit. It's a messy, imprecise analogy but think of trying to remember a specific, noteworthy event on a night that you were black out drunk. Next we have the fact that a lot of these events are experienced by many people and a standardized, consistent narrative emerges. The problem is that people unintentionally incorporate this into their own accounts. A famous example with regards to the Holocaust is the selection after the train arrives at the camp. We can all picture it in our heads: abused, tired Jews get off the train and an SS doctor examines them. Some are sent one direction and others in another. For one group their journey ends immediately at the gas chambers and ovens, while another lives for at least a little while longer as slave labor. It's a stark, striking image and one of the indelible icons of the Holocaust. Unfortunately survivors partake in popular culture as well and these images have an effect on them. The professor who I spoke of earlier had a story of his own. It was the mid-80s and he was conducting an interview with a survivor. Part of her story was the "arrival at the camp" narrative I described above. She related it beat for beat. The problem is that it was impossible for her to have experienced it. He had both documents and testimony from other survivors that the rails had been hosed up that day so they got off early and marched to the camp. On arrival there was some bureaucratic fuckup so the selection couldn't happen right away and they just funneled everyone over to the work side. What she said simply never happened to her. Of course he didn't call her out on it. He had no doubt she was relating what she thought was her experience, and other aspects of her testimony were useful to him. In that case you have someone who was going through in intensely traumatic experience, talking to a historian 40 years after the fact, and had been exposed to a whole poo poo load of other survivor accounts in the intervening years. Her brain probably just filled in the gaps. Who knows what kind of hosed up, awful poo poo really happened that she could have been repressing? Alternatively she could have been giving the expected, safe answer to avoid talking about some truly heinous poo poo that she remembered perfectly well. Or, it could simply be that everything was just such an indistinct rush of activity that she doesn't have any specific memory of arriving at the camp. Maybe she was in the middle of the crowd and just assumed what what transpired between getting off the train and reaching the inside of the camp was what everyone talked about later. The key to remember is that these aren't conscious decisions being made by this woman, it's just her brain taking the information that it remembers and filling in the gaps with whatever else is available. Going back to my wedding example, if you created a very clever photoshop that included some bizarre detail in the background of one of my pictures and I saw that photo every day for a decade, there's a decent chance I might actually "remember" it. So where does this leave us? The testimony of people who experienced historical events is, despite all this, valuable. It just has to be used critically. What it's great for is providing the kind of experiential details that you can't get from a document. What kind of emotions did this soldier feel? What was the mood of the crowd at that protest? These are the things that you can't get from documents and which the human mind is actually pretty good at conveying. They are also invaluable for providing the vignettes that make history interesting. When you draw together a bunch of data, produce an analysis, and then have an individual's experience that highlights the point you're making it just works so goddamned well. If you can aggregate a bunch of individual accounts then you can also pull out the common threads and paint a good picture of what was going on. If you interview 100 people you can spot the outliers and get a pretty solid picture. When you have documents to check them against this can lend even more credibility to individual accounts, which in turn can let you take that one-off account that seems extraordinary and perhaps give it some more credence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
That was very informative, thanks for taking the time to write it up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Sorry to throw more tankchat on you guys, but are there any sources that'd break down M60s versus contemporary T-64s and T-72s? I've run into someone who I generally consider saavy on this sort of thing who's painted that the T-72 is a significantly inferior vehicle to the M60, and has pointed to the Battle of Kuwait Airport in Gulf War 1 as proof that the M60 is a vastly superior specimen to the T-72. This feels distinctly off to me; while I can appreciate the disadvantages of the autoloader and the fact that many soviet tanks are ergonomically uncharitable, I can't find any source on me or the internet that doesn't suggest that the T-72 is faster, better (and meaningfully) armoured*, and has higher penetration characteristics. I'm aware that that's not everything, but I'm also unaware of a source that suggests the ergonomics of the T-72 are so horrible as to outweigh everything, nor of any horrific reliability issue that also neuters it. Did I miss something big? M60A1 contemporaries would have been the T-64A and the T-72 "Ural". If we extend the timeline further, then the T-64B and the T-72A should also be included. Basically in comparison with the 64A and the 72, it would have been mostly a case of whoever shot first. Not all (hell, not even the majority probably) tank on tank battles are a 12 on 12 slugging match, so that means both sides are equally vulnerable to each-other as side armor does not meaningfully exist against APDS and only sort of against HEAT with proper protective skirts (and some luck). While in terms of raw technical characteristics the 64A is the most advanced, with the M60A1 and 72 being tied, I would say the most important thing for a match up between them would have been terrain, crew training and leadership. Once we get to the 64B and the 72A however, that 105mm on the M60A1 is in some serious trouble as these tanks have much better armor and perhaps more importantly, laser range finders. An LRF allows for much quicker and more accurate engagement of targets, which would be decisive against the optical-coincidence rangefinder on the M60A1. However, terrain, crew training and leadership are still hugely important. If you would like to know more about the T-72 and the T-64 I have some effort-posts here that you can find with the "?" under my name. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-ax3a0Oxtk As an aside, this video of the T-72M1 in Swedish trials popped up on my youtube, and my search for more information lead me to this website which seems fairly decent: http://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.ru/2015/05/t-72-soviet-progeny.html Edit: Another thing to consider is that NATO standards for a penetration is that 50% of all rounds penetrate through a given thickness. While for the Soviets that requirement is 80%. So this will factor into how one should perceive the numbers, especially with your later penetration figures as according to them the M60 will get ventilated basically every time while for the T-72, only about half of the time will it happen. Edit2: quote:All in all, optical coincidence sights were generally considered wholly unsatisfactory due to their cost and complexity of operation, which the TPD-2-49 was no exception to. They were also fragile, despite extensive shockproofing and anti-vibration bushings. Any misalignment as a result of shocks from tank shell impacts could cause the sight to be so inaccurate that it becomes useless, and this was a big problem with the T-72 (and indeed, every other tank with such a rangefinder) because an optical tube connecting the first aperture to the main sighting unit ran across the turret roof above the gun. Hitting anywhere in that vicinity could put the sight out of commission. This, in addition to the issues mentioned above, meant that production was summarily discontinued just two years later in 1975 and all T-72 Urals were refitted with TPD-K1 laser rangefinding sights in the T-72 Ural-1 modernization later in that same year (The Ural-1 modernization retained the turret of the Ural, but swapped out the sight). Since it was of no use anymore, the TPD-2-49's second optic port was blocked off and permanently welded shut. Seriously, this blog is a terrific resource. Edit3: Holt poo poo, this page even goes into the details of how NERA, bulging plates and other such esoteric subjects work. This is awesome. Xerxes17 fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Another example of how effortposts are always good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Put simply, human memory is loving garbage. Thanks, this is really interesting. I've been fascinated by the fallibility of memory (and people's refusal to accept it) since I read about 'flashbulb' memories, and how they decay just like every other memory despite feeling as though they're seared into your mind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:It's a Cold War thread, you goober. I know but it also says "Airpower" 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
MrMojok posted:I know but it also says "Airpower" Its an intersection not a union...
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:Basically in comparison with the 64A and the 72, it would have been mostly a case of whoever shot first. Not all (hell, not even the majority probably) tank on tank battles are a 12 on 12 slugging match, so that means both sides are equally vulnerable to each-other as side armor does not meaningfully exist against APDS and only sort of against HEAT with proper protective skirts (and some luck). While in terms of raw technical characteristics the 64A is the most advanced, with the M60A1 and 72 being tied, I would say the most important thing for a match up between them would have been terrain, crew training and leadership. Other than that though, in general I agree with you and with previous posters. A tank is a tank is a tank, you gotta look at it in the context of the army that's using it, their logistics, their crew training, morale, intelligence etc etc. Also, in tank duels, more often than not whoever shoots first and gets the first hit in will win regardless of who has the "superior" tank, for morale reasons if nothing else. Even non-penetrating hits can make a tank (or its crew) combat-ineffective. Xerxes17 posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-ax3a0Oxtk  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjkWgek6UXU seriously how the gently caress did he get close to a million views on the thing when my original upload has like 20k (not that I'm monetizing it or anything, but still, it would be fun to have my inbox full of angry russians going on about how swedish tank drivers don't know poo poo) I have some more tank trial videos on my channel by the way in case you want to nerd out more. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:If the American 1960's ammo was anything like the British equivalent, a M60A1 that sees an original model T-64 in the late 1960's can't pen it from the front at any reasonable combat range. 60's ammo (which persisted in stocks for a long, long time in many countries) was absolute garbage against the heavily sloped front plate of the T-64 and T-72. This changed rapidly in the 1970's, though. This is true and something I also found out from that blog-post I am currently devouring. (Yes, I am still not finished reading this thing, goddamn.) There is a big difference between APDS and APFSDS penetration mechanics beyond my earlier understanding of "long rod = better". So yes, the T-64A would be basically immune and the T-72 would be mostly immune at most combat ranges, while their guns will have no problems, especially with HEAT rounds. poo poo, there's even details on how the steel jacket around the tungsten bullets in soviet APFSDS rounds will cause huge cratering in armor on impact and will greatly improve damage done via side-armor hits. TheFluff posted:that's some rude russian who took my ORIGINAL CONTENT DO NOT STEAL which I myself took from a friend who had it on DVD, which he got from the national archives, who digitized it from VHS I had a feeling that this would be the response from you  quote:seriously how the gently caress did he get close to a million views on the thing when my original upload has like 20k From my short time in Russia so far, the amount of militarization in their society is amazingly high. Tanks flow through the Russian blood probably more than Vodka at this point. So tank videos are very popular. Xerxes17 fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:If the American 1960's ammo was anything like the British equivalent, a M60A1 that sees an original model T-64 in the late 1960's can't pen it from the front at any reasonable combat range. 60's ammo (which persisted in stocks for a long, long time in many countries) was absolute garbage against the heavily sloped front plate of the T-64 and T-72. This changed rapidly in the 1970's, though. To be fair, when those tanks came out, they scared the US into developing the Shillelagh and MBT-70 quite heavily. It's a lot like the Bradley and the BMP.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:This is true and something I also found out from that blog-post I am currently devouring. (Yes, I am still not finished reading this thing, goddamn.) There is a big difference between APDS and APFSDS penetration mechanics beyond my earlier understanding of "long rod = better". So yes, the T-64A would be basically immune and the T-72 would be mostly immune at most combat ranges, while their guns will have no problems, especially with HEAT rounds. poo poo, there's even details on how the steel jacket around the tungsten bullets in soviet APFSDS rounds will cause huge cratering in armor on impact and will greatly improve damage done via side-armor hits. In the 1970s, didn't the M60 get a new gun that could blow holes through the T-72? I remember reading that a Israeli M60 with this gun what knocked out in Syria managed to make its way to the Soviets, and they were not amused. This is why 1980s Soviet T-72s have that extra turret armor? This was also an important event if you were a T-72 user, because then it became super important to get upgrades, and the T-72s of the Iraqi army didn't get them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
100 Years Ago The Italians have finally been sent some proper rock drills; their opponents have been thinking "what if we could push a boulder down a hill and then have it explode?. In Britain an extremely odd man called Noel Pemberton Billing begins his political career; Grigoris Balakian's string of relatively good days gets broken; Henri Desagneaux complains about something; Edward Mousley is getting very worrried about his horse; and Maximilian Mugge is staggered to find out that there are people in the world who, get this, don't always use perfect grammar in their speech.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Maximilian Mugge is staggered to find out that there are people in the world who, get this, don't always use perfect grammar in their speech.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Just wait until he finds out that the sergeant says "gently caress" sometimes! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
I am agitated about you redacting the pretentious Latin phrase, since it was Latin and therefore not pretentious but rather wonderful and inspiring instead
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:I am agitated about you redacting the pretentious Latin phrase, since it was Latin and therefore not pretentious but rather wonderful and inspiring instead
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 09:16 |
|
|
"Isti miseri"
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 00:04
|
|